Yvonne wrote:The tax abatement is not 95% city and 5% county. That is an error, in fact, check with the law department of JC if you think I am wrong. It is 100% Jersey City with an extra 5% going to the county. The 5% was a settlement from a Secaucus lawsuit against JC. It was to be 10% but was cut to 5% due to favors due to retribution.

LoL what? People pay 105% of their abatements now?

Haven't you been paying attention? Yvonne is arithmetically impaired.

Just when you thought Yvonne couldn't get any kookier... This reminds me of the time someone tried to argue with me that 25% was not the same as dividing by four. Some people just don't understand numbers.

And she was a (math) teacher? Scary thought. I put this on par with the guy that wanted double decker PATH trains (with really LOW wheels or something for the tunnel clearance haha).

That guy *still* will not accept that it is not possible to cram a double decker into the PATH tubes. He keeps arguing that it could be done. At one point, he tried to argue they could make the levels in each train very short and people would just have to hunch over... ha ha ha!

Yvonne wrote:The tax abatement is not 95% city and 5% county. That is an error, in fact, check with the law department of JC if you think I am wrong. It is 100% Jersey City with an extra 5% going to the county. The 5% was a settlement from a Secaucus lawsuit against JC. It was to be 10% but was cut to 5% due to favors due to retribution.

LoL what? People pay 105% of their abatements now?

Haven't you been paying attention? Yvonne is arithmetically impaired.

Just when you thought Yvonne couldn't get any kookier... This reminds me of the time someone tried to argue with me that 25% was not the same as dividing by four. Some people just don't understand numbers.

And she was a (math) teacher? Scary thought. I put this on par with the guy that wanted double decker PATH trains (with really LOW wheels or something for the tunnel clearance haha).

Yvonne wrote:The tax abatement is not 95% city and 5% county. That is an error, in fact, check with the law department of JC if you think I am wrong. It is 100% Jersey City with an extra 5% going to the county. The 5% was a settlement from a Secaucus lawsuit against JC. It was to be 10% but was cut to 5% due to favors due to retribution.

LoL what? People pay 105% of their abatements now?

Haven't you been paying attention? Yvonne is arithmetically impaired.

Just when you thought Yvonne couldn't get any kookier... This reminds me of the time someone tried to argue with me that 25% was not the same as dividing by four. Some people just don't understand numbers.

Yvonne wrote:The tax abatement is not 95% city and 5% county. That is an error, in fact, check with the law department of JC if you think I am wrong. It is 100% Jersey City with an extra 5% going to the county. The 5% was a settlement from a Secaucus lawsuit against JC. It was to be 10% but was cut to 5% due to favors due to retribution.

Yvonne wrote:The tax abatement is not 95% city and 5% county. That is an error, in fact, check with the law department of JC if you think I am wrong. It is 100% Jersey City with an extra 5% going to the county. The 5% was a settlement from a Secaucus lawsuit against JC. It was to be 10% but was cut to 5% due to favors due to retribution.

Are you saying the lot has a separate deed? My place near the rail got a nice 20% reduction when I appealed a few years ago, I'm curious to see what they cook up to raise it. Theoretically it should still be just right.

I haven't looked at the deed since I bought the place nearly 20 years ago. I think it is all on one deed. However, the empty lot is listed on a separate block and lot number.

It created some confusion years back when the bank who held the mortgage failed to pay the taxes on the parking lot.

Appeal is not an option. I know for a fact I am under-assessed. After renovating the place 20 years ago, for some reason, i never got re-assessed (lucky me).

The tax abatement is not 95% city and 5% county. That is an error, in fact, check with the law department of JC if you think I am wrong. It is 100% Jersey City with an extra 5% going to the county. The 5% was a settlement from a Secaucus lawsuit against JC. It was to be 10% but was cut to 5% due to favors due to retribution.

MDM wrote:I got a 13.6% reduction on my one Heights property. The building in question has a non-build lot attached to it currently used as tenant parking. Unfortunately, it isn't listed on the appraisal list. So I may get hosed a bit based on what I am reading on the increasing value of land.

My one property near North st. though I am sure will get a hefty increase. Too many giant homes renovated after the light rail went into operation.

Are you saying the lot has a separate deed? My place near the rail got a nice 20% reduction when I appealed a few years ago, I'm curious to see what they cook up to raise it. Theoretically it should still be just right.

brewster wrote:I got mine in the Heights, up 10% but they've made a nearly 20% error in estimating the habitable square footage. I guess I'll be talking to them. Also weirdly, on the card they list the property with a 25-foot frontage but on the current tax records that's clearly a 20-foot. How do you screw that up?

I got a 13.6% reduction on my one Heights property. The building in question has a non-build lot attached to it currently used as tenant parking. Unfortunately, it isn't listed on the appraisal list. So I may get hosed a bit based on what I am reading on the increasing value of land.

My one property near North st. though I am sure will get a hefty increase. Too many giant homes renovated after the light rail went into operation.

I got mine in the Heights, up 10% but they've made a nearly 20% error in estimating the habitable square footage. I guess I'll be talking to them. Also weirdly, on the card they list the property with a 25-foot frontage but on the current tax records that's clearly a 20-foot. How do you screw that up?

No tax rate changes and the total budget is $587 million, $2 million less this year than the 2017 budget.

It's a little odd that the ratable base and PILOT payments have increased this year, the budget has dropped by $2 million, but the tax rate stays the same...

It literally doesn't add up.

Not that odd. Direct real estate taxation only accounts for about 60% of the municipal budget. The other sources of revenue may be lower (state aid, permit fees, other taxes) which could explain a lower budget. A 2 MM drop is not even 0.4%, so that's essentially a rounding error in practical terms.

Good point - I just wish they would comment on what was reduced that had to be made up for in other areas of the budget. The drop in the other sources is in excess of $8 million, since more money was collected in court fines ($2 million more than last year) and PILOT payments (another $2 million) along with a $95 million increase in the ratable base (also good for about $2 million in city revenue).

We won't know exactly how much more until the full budget document is released tomorrow but the $8 million swing is worth looking at.

No tax rate changes and the total budget is $587 million, $2 million less this year than the 2017 budget.

It's a little odd that the ratable base and PILOT payments have increased this year, the budget has dropped by $2 million, but the tax rate stays the same...

It literally doesn't add up.

Not that odd. Direct real estate taxation only accounts for about 60% of the municipal budget. The other sources of revenue may be lower (state aid, permit fees, other taxes) which could explain a lower budget. A 2 MM drop is not even 0.4%, so that's essentially a rounding error in practical terms.

Land, pre-reval, was negligible, about $300 per year. Now it's estimated to be about $2k.

So, all in all, going from 10.3k to about 12k.

If we had no abatement, the property tax would be around $14k. It expires in a few years.

So, all things equal, in a few years our property tax will go up roughly $2k.

If the recent numbers in this thread are true, that means when the abatement expires, the city will go from collecting ~$11.4k per year, to $7k per year from us.

This building has around 100 units in it. Meaning when the abatement expires, the city will lose (approx., at 2018 numbers) $450k per year.

Now, extrapolate your example by the many buildings that will see abatements expire over the next few years and decade, and you start to see a huge looming budget hole. And, the only way the city will be able to plug that hole is by getting more people to move here, or by raising taxes. All those people picketing in front of city hall, demanding that abatements be done away with have no idea what they are asking for, and what will happen if their misplaced demands were suddenly manifested.

HeightsNative wrote:Fair point, Bodhi. And your estimate is a fair compromise with the state.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Trenton is not known for being swift, so any changes to school funding could take a long time, and the topic itself is fraught with so much politics that it will be a small miracle to see any meaningful changes. As such, JC may dodge a bullet for a while. Hard to tell how hard other municipalities will react to our "low" rate. Logic would tell you that they would be up in arms immediately but, as the expression goes, politics makes for strange bedfellows.

The promised second reval could prove tricky, or even treacherous, for Fulop if school funding changes are forced, as the JC homeowners will end up with even higher taxes, and people have a hard time understanding the finer points and will likely not be very forgiving if the overall levies go up, even if the city administration is not at fault. Also, expiring abatements over the next few years may push up tax levies if those properties are paying higher PILOTs today than regular taxes.

JCGuys wrote:But that doesn't fit the narrative spread by Yvonne and others that the city loses money with tax abatements. In this case, the city is getting A LOT more than they would if there was no abatement. Not just in total taxes, but since the city doesn't have to split with PILOT payments with Hudson County and the School Board.

What's the breakdown anyway? Most of the property taxes goes to the school board, right?

My understanding is that when it comes to regular property taxes in JC, the breakdown is about 50% city, 25% school, 25% county. Not sure if those numbers are 100% accurate.

As for abatements, 95% city, 5% county.

As yes, the reality of taxation in JC is SOOOOO different from what most people think, partly based on ignorance, and part on the lies and myths spread by people like Yvonne.

The city would lose a TON of money if the abatements were magically done away with overnight. They would have to raise taxes tremendously to make up the shortfall. At about ~128 MM/year, PILOTs account for about 36% of tax revenue. That means those abated properties are collectively paying ~135 MM/year. To collect the same amount of money (128 MM) the city would need to collect almost 260 MM, and that would be spread across all homeowners. Talk about tax hit. People should be wary of wanting to do away with all abatements.

Now imagine JC had to pay for its own schools! That would be a roughly $500mm hit to non abated properties. Heaven forbid that gives JC a property tax rate closer to the rest of the state!

That's the whole crux here; granting of abatements relies entirely on the fact that this state funding never goes away. That's a massive risk the mayor and council are taking (previous and current. And probably future). But, like with the reval, that will be someone elses problem down the road.

It's not a massive risk. It's a calculates risk. By law, the state (and, indirectly, other municipalities) are required to fund the JC school district. The Abbott decisions have been upheld, and even expanded, on many occasions. So, what you will see is rumblings in Trenton from other municipalities, and we will likely see an increase in what JC is expected to shoulder, but it will never be 500 MM. At most, they will ask (force?) us to double our funding, making us responsible for about 33% of our budget. That move would push our current 1.62% rate to about 2%.

JCGuys wrote:But that doesn't fit the narrative spread by Yvonne and others that the city loses money with tax abatements. In this case, the city is getting A LOT more than they would if there was no abatement. Not just in total taxes, but since the city doesn't have to split with PILOT payments with Hudson County and the School Board.

What's the breakdown anyway? Most of the property taxes goes to the school board, right?

My understanding is that when it comes to regular property taxes in JC, the breakdown is about 50% city, 25% school, 25% county. Not sure if those numbers are 100% accurate.

As for abatements, 95% city, 5% county.

As yes, the reality of taxation in JC is SOOOOO different from what most people think, partly based on ignorance, and part on the lies and myths spread by people like Yvonne.

The city would lose a TON of money if the abatements were magically done away with overnight. They would have to raise taxes tremendously to make up the shortfall. At about ~128 MM/year, PILOTs account for about 36% of tax revenue. That means those abated properties are collectively paying ~135 MM/year. To collect the same amount of money (128 MM) the city would need to collect almost 260 MM, and that would be spread across all homeowners. Talk about tax hit. People should be wary of wanting to do away with all abatements.

Now imagine JC had to pay for its own schools! That would be a roughly $500mm hit to non abated properties. Heaven forbid that gives JC a property tax rate closer to the rest of the state!

That's the whole crux here; granting of abatements relies entirely on the fact that this state funding never goes away. That's a massive risk the mayor and council are taking (previous and current. And probably future). But, like with the reval, that will be someone elses problem down the road.

JCGuys wrote:But that doesn't fit the narrative spread by Yvonne and others that the city loses money with tax abatements. In this case, the city is getting A LOT more than they would if there was no abatement. Not just in total taxes, but since the city doesn't have to split with PILOT payments with Hudson County and the School Board.

What's the breakdown anyway? Most of the property taxes goes to the school board, right?

My understanding is that when it comes to regular property taxes in JC, the breakdown is about 50% city, 25% school, 25% county. Not sure if those numbers are 100% accurate.

As for abatements, 95% city, 5% county.

As yes, the reality of taxation in JC is SOOOOO different from what most people think, partly based on ignorance, and part on the lies and myths spread by people like Yvonne.

The city would lose a TON of money if the abatements were magically done away with overnight. They would have to raise taxes tremendously to make up the shortfall. At about ~128 MM/year, PILOTs account for about 36% of tax revenue. That means those abated properties are collectively paying ~135 MM/year. To collect the same amount of money (128 MM) the city would need to collect almost 260 MM, and that would be spread across all homeowners. Talk about tax hit. People should be wary of wanting to do away with all abatements.

But that doesn't fit the narrative spread by Yvonne and others that the city loses money with tax abatements. In this case, the city is getting A LOT more than they would if there was no abatement. Not just in total taxes, but since the city doesn't have to split with PILOT payments with Hudson County and the School Board.

What's the breakdown anyway? Most of the property taxes goes to the school board, right?

JCGuys wrote:This is a fascinating case! A tax abated property paying 55% more than if it had received no tax abatement and paid normal property taxes.

The city will collect thousands less when the tax abatement is dropped AND it will have to share those revenues with JCBOE and the County.

Not at all surprising. In fact, for a while I have been speculating this would become a reality for many homeowners who have purchased abated properties in recent times: their abated taxes are higher than traditional taxes now that the reval came out with such a relatively low property tax rate.

All those Canco Loft units were "abated" at ~1.67%, so they could now go off their abatement contracts and save a bit of money, and the city will have to come up with additional income streams to make up the large shortfall. The same is likely true of many, many other property owners. The real question is: how many homeowners are savvy enough to look at their abatement contracts and do the math to determine which is better for them: abatement or regular taxes. If enough people decide to go off abatement, the city will see a huge drop in income and that promised reval for next year may actually yield a higher rate. That definitely would spell trouble for the mayor, and those DTJC homeowners wishing/hoping for relief after a second reval.

@JC_Rider - so between the lines - the portion of the assessment under the PILOT does not change under the reval until the PILOT expires. And I guess the rules for dropping an abatement may be different to a standard appeal. With the latter - an appeal in 2018 would apply to the whole of 2018, though you'd pay the original 2018 bill then get a refund in Jan 2019.

Worth getting an attorney on the case. I would have expected the original PILOT to be expressed in % of assessed value - and should be updated with the reval. Likely the tax office's IT system can't handle that update.

JC_rider wrote:Does anyone know how to remove tax abatement from a property? Just got the new assesment and heading to City Hall tomorrow.

Bought a condo on Westside last year near Mallory and knew taxes were too high because it was originally sold at peak of 2005 with abatement. Now I get a tax bill and city is increasing the % on the improvements. If I were to get rid of the abatement it will save me more than 30% for 2018! Kicker is with abatement dropped some of that money will go to school system that badly needs it.

We knew that people in Greenville, B/L & Westside were subsidizing rest of downtown Hamilton Park but this is just crazy.If you have an abated property make sure to compare what it would be without it.

Yvonne, do you have anything to say about this?

I find it interesting because only improvements can receive an tax abatement. Land is taxed normally.

Are you seriously suggesting that because of the reval, your taxes are going up and you would pay 30% less if you were taxed normally?

Can anyone else help me understand this situation?

Paging Yvonne

It's really a question for the tax office. Under a standard 5-year abatement for improvements, you get something like a 25% exemption. That exemption should apply to the post-reval assessment if you're still in the abatement period. What you can't do is appeal taxes during an abatement.

Sounds like JC_Rider is in one of the piloted properties that has a longer abatement. Different rules to the 5-year. Need an expert to figure it out - might even be worth hiring an attorney to renegotiate.

Clarification on original post: Quarterly land taxes are going up from $210 annually to 670! I said it backwards before land vs improvements. Pilot part staying same around $4250 but total adds up to $4870 annually with abatement. 2018 assessment is 192K. Without abatement it should be $3110 using 2018 assessment at 1.62 rate. My math was way off on the original post as well. I will be paying %55 more ($4870-$3110=$1760! )

I knew the taxes were high when picked up the property last year and spoke a lawyer. He told me to hold off until reval & new tax rate comes out since abatement is good until 2025.

Spoke to abatement & tax office and I have to submit in writing to drop the abatement. They warned me that once dropped can't get it back. I don't expect taxes to go up 55% until 2025 and keeping abatement is a guaranteed 55%+ until 2025!. I am going to drop the abatement but they told me that deadline was Oct 31. Going to talk to lawyer to see if it can be done sooner.

Abatement office told me about the credit and my taxes should stay the same as 2017 but even that is a crazy over payment.2017 annual $4460- 2018 at 1.62 rate of 192K assessed value is $3110. $1350 or %43.4 over payment!

I think all my neighbors have been overpaying since 2008 market crash in this complex because original purchase was at the peak with abatement.